Stage 5 - The Disclosures of [Mary] and the
other children in the 'Satellite' Cases

At the start of the enquiry we were made aware that
[Mary], a seventeen year old member of the Broxtowe
family, was intimating that young children had been
murdered. After this [Mary] was subjected to three months
of therapeutic work by her social workers at the end of
which the team was presented with a thirty five page
transcript of disclosures that she had witnessed and been
involved in at least seven child murders and acts of
cannibalism at her parents home during access visits.

The transcript was presented to us as the basis for a
full Police investigation. We were very concerned by this
disclosure material as it was clearly full of leading and
limited choice questioning. It was apparent to us that
the social workers must have been interviewing [Mary] on
the basis that they believed [Craig], [James] and
[Rebecca] when they claimed that she had been present at
witch parties. The social workers told [Mary] that
"we need to know everything" and all her
inconsistent replies are treated as reality. We consider
it essential to provide a lengthy extract from this
transcript as the work with [Mary] is important to some
of the conclusions in this report.

As far as we are aware the social workers still
consider that their work was satisfactory as the Area
Director wrote to us after our views were made known to
him "that the work was well planned and based on
sound theory" and that "my workers were most
unhappy at the way in which [Mary] was interviewed (by
the Police)".

The following gives a flavour of the type of questions
asked and some of [Mary]'s answers (which are in
brackets). "Your father's killed a baby more than
once." "We know that your father delivered a
foetus and aborted it - he drank the baby's blood"
(M. I didn't know anything about that) "You tell us
about things that happen when you were there" (M. I
ate the stomach my dad ate the head) "What part of
the head?" "What's special about the
stomach?" "Did anybody say why you should eat
the baby?" "Dad brought the baby and the
wheelie bin, what then?"

"When you ate the stomach, were you told it was
good for you?" "Did you say any words, prayers,
chants?" "That's one occasion when you had to
eat part of a baby - I'd like you to tell us about
parties where that happened." "Other parties
where babies are killed." "You had to eat
babies more than once" (M. I can't remember)
"We think you did." "Whose baby?"
"Who brought it?" "A name?"
"Difficult to remember who asked you to kill the
baby" (M. I didn't kill it) "Who told you
to?" "Did she give you a knife?" (M. No)
"I think she did." "I think you had to do
it you were scared something might happen to you."
"Did the social worker stay?" "You were
asked to kill the baby." "You had to do
it." "How was it killed?" "Last time
we met you talked about an 11 year old boy being
killed" (M. I heard it on the news, he was murdered
and thrown in the Trent, I don't know who by).

"Let's have older children you've seen
murdered" (M. at a house someone murdered a kid
that's all I remember) "How old?" "Who was
there?" "Who ate it?" "Did they have
to drink the blood?" "We think you were made
to." "Did many people get buried in mum's back
garden?" "That's not right. You said babies
were buried somewhere else." "Who was buried in
the front garden?" "Mum put the knife in and
made you do it." "You did it that's why you're
frightened." "You quite liked drinking blood
and that made you guilty." "She made you eat
him." "Does mum wear special clothes?"
"Tell us about the adults that have been
killed" "and the Church." "Did you
sexually abuse the little boy before you were made to
kill it?"

"Did someone give birth to that baby at the big
house?" "When you got there was the lady
aborting the baby?" "What did it taste
like?" "What parts did you eat?"
"What other reasons id people in your family kill
babies for?" "At the Church drinking
blood" "Who told dad to kill?" (M. don't
know) "I think you did." "Does he murder
on any special days or times?" "[Craig] talked
to me about granddad drinking blood what would [Craig]
say he drinks blood for?" "[Craig] says [Mary]
was there" (M. to please the Devil) "That's
what [Craig] was told is that what [Mary] was told?"
"You were told the Devil would be please."
"[Craig] was told it would do special things for
him. Things your family did for the Devil."
"Things happened to [James], [Rebecca], special
things I don't know if special things happened to you,
you haven't told us yet."

"Your family did this because they believe in the
Devil" "Who else had the same belief outside
the family?" "Names?" "Outside the
family (M. Robin the whole Church) "Some people in
this are important people." "You killed at
least one baby, more than one, 3?, 30? how many?"
"If you didn't feel (guilty) you might go on
killing."

It seems to us that the whole purpose of the therapy
is to prove that [Mary] was involved in Satanism and to
find out who further she would implicate. The questioning
moves from establishing that she has killed and eaten
babies and likes drinking human blood to questions about
the adults involved and a Church, whether special days
were used, whether special clothes were worn, whether
prayers, words, or chants were used. It appears to be
finally established to the social workers' satisfaction
that all this has happened because [Mary]'s family are
involved in 'Devil Worship'. The work appears to have all
the elements of an interrogation; leading and limited
choice questions (e.g. you killed at least one baby, more
than one, 3?, 30? How many?) Statements make her believe
that she had already admitted something, the sudden
demand for 'a name' and "the Church", 'names'
to catch her off guard are also employed. The questioner
appears to have no doubt that the person being questioned
is involved and the task is to make them
"confess" by any means available. It is
reminiscent of MacFarlaine's attitude in the McMartin
trial when she calls for unconventional interviewing
methods that "do whatever it takes to get children
to talk". However, to believe [Mary], the social
workers have to accept that seven murders and acts of
cannibalism had taken place in the front room of a
semi-detached house on a council estate to coincide with
access visits without anybody noticing and that a social
worker must have been implicated.

Faced with this material which appeared to throw new
light on what may have happened in the USA, Canada and
Holland we sought the help of Professors John and
Elizabeth Newson of the Child Development Research Unit
at Nottingham University and Professor Nicol of the
Department of Child Psychiatry at Leicester University.
Professor Newson advised us that [Mary] should be
interviewed by the Police in the presence of her social
worker on video and he further advised that the first
session should encourage [Mary] to say anything that she
wanted to without any questioning and that this video
tape should be compared with the original transcript
before a second interview was conducted at which probing
questions could be asked. This advice was followed
completely.

During the course of the second interview [Mary]
explained that the only knowledge that she had was
obtained from the social workers who had told her
[Craig]'s story. She said that she had been pressurized
and that the social workers would not take no for an
answer. She thought that her nephew [Craig] would get
into trouble if she did not back him up. Everything that
she had disclosed to the social workers was totally
untrue and she had only been to one birthday party at her
parents' house since she came into care. We have since
been concerned to learn that the social workers
"were most unhappy at the way in which [Mary] was
interviewed by the Police" with the implication that
they still believe that she was originally telling the
truth. In our view it was an excellent police interview
which we would recommend anybody to watch.

After reading the transcript and studying all the
videos with regard to [Mary], Professors John and
Elizabeth Newson have since written to us with the
following comments from John Newson: "I suggest that
this case should be carefully documented and presented by
the Team because it is perhaps an important example of
how the truth might be subverted and the whole factual
situation confused if the guidelines and principles set
out above are ignored". Special facts leading to his
conclusion seem to be:

Overall confounding of investigative and
therapeutic aims by social workers.

Confusion over what does and what does not
constitute evidence (social workers).

Asking leading questions (social workers).

Attributing actual behaviour both to [Mary] and
to her mother before this behaviour has been in
any way established by evidence other than
[Mary]'s (inconsistent) testimony. This behaviour
is stated as a clear fact.

"One may cite numerous occasions where the
social workers did assert as bald fact their belief that
[Mary] had witnessed and participated in child murder and
in the eating of human flesh.... There are many
inconsistencies in the stories told by [Mary] at
different points in these transcripts. The social work
interviewers also imply to [Mary] that the 'facts' were
not in dispute but that it was her memory of them that
was faulty. This is a procedure which in other contexts
might well be described as 'brainwashing'; in fact [Mary]
frequently describes herself as confused.

"Between them the interview records suggest
to me that [Mary] has been led into confabulating a story
which she herself now half believes on the basis of
statements made to her by social workers during
disclosure interviews. If this assessment is correct the
'disclosure' procedure she has been put through may well
have persuaded this disturbed and confused young woman
that she herself is a child murderer, has drunk human
blood and has eaten human flesh in collusion with her
mother, and she has been left with the conviction that
these misdeeds were partly at the instigation of a
personified Devil - who she may believe might well try to
induce her to perform similar bestial acts in the
future...

"There may indeed be organized groups of
individuals practising (ritual) abuse in this community
but none of the material I have seen or heard would count
as convincing evidence as it stands. In my view also the
accounts of adults ([Mandy] and [Vivian]) being offered
are simply not consistent with the detailed accounts they
could have given had they actually been present at
genuine witchcraft ceremonies.

"I am particularly concerned that in the
course of their disclosure interviews the social workers
involved appear to have offered the children a whole
vocabulary for describing their experiences which serves
to transform their accounts into apparently plausible
description of witchcraft practices".

Professors John and Elizabeth Newson would wish to
emphasize that the comments in their report were based
upon the evidence submitted to them i.e. upon the one or
two very specific interviews with particular clients and
that there may be other evidence which deserved to be
taken into account to which they did not have access.
They were not commenting on the competence of social
workers generally.

Professor Nicol after reading the transcript and
viewing [Mary]'s four video tapes comments as follows.

"I believe that for proper management it is
essential that the facts of the abuse should be
established as far as possible. Although this may be
difficult normal rules of evidence must be observed. I
note that the videotape interviews that I have been asked
to view follow the weekend sessions in which ritualistic
abuse was discussed. It is not clear whether these
weekend sessions were for the purposes of disclosure,
therapy or both... The transcript process record reveals
that simple principles of neutral questioning have not
been followed... this is a grossly leading line of
questioning and is followed throughout the interviews...

"I would want to place these elaborate
allegations in the context of her general adjustment. Is
there other evidence of fantasising (not uncommon) or
attention needing behaviour? Most important is there
collateral evidence for these far reaching allegations?
What we can say is that the interviewing technique used
in the original disclosure involved the extensive use of
leading questions and was experienced by [Mary] as
pressurising according to comments made in the third
tape.

"Unless there has been a lot of assessment
work that I am unaware of, I believe that attention in
this case has been inappropriately focused on obtaining a
disclosure of Satanism practices. I can see no evidence
from these interviews that such practices took
place."

[Mary] was not the only new case referred to the team
during the five months of its existence. In total a
further 11 children were brought to our attention who
appeared to be describing ritualistic/Satanic abuse.
Professor Newson's advice was followed and all but two
were interviewed and videoed by Police at Epperstone.

[Amy] Aged 14. Alleged Satanic ritualistic
abuse involving named people and thirteen children. She
claimed that she had been taken to a 'black house' where
a ceremony took place involving 100 people. She withdrew
all her allegations stating that she wished to remain in
care and had made up all the stories.

[Lily] Aged 9. Alleged babies being cooked in a
microwave oven, witchcraft parties and Satanic parties
held at Wollaton Hall. The disclosures were obtained by
her foster mother who tape-recorded the conversation.
[Lily] started the Police interviews by repeating her
allegations but when questioned regarding facts could
give no coherent answers. Eventually she fully retracted
her allegations and went on to explain that she wanted to
please her foster mother during the interviews conducted
by her. The foster mother had questioned her between
recordings.

[Neil] Aged 8. Also in care and placed with one
of the Broxtowe children's former foster parents, alleged
that he had been to scary parties at a lady's house, that
the woman had killed a baby and placed it in a microwave.
He went on to speak of frightening parties in graveyards
at which adults wore vampire suits and that the children
were locked in caves. At his Police interview he did not
retract his story but went on to say that babies were
cooked for six hours and came out black (previously raw).
He was not aware that the baby would have 'exploded'. He
went on to say that spiders talked.

He could not identify any of the places he had
mentioned when taken to see them. Coincidentally he made
this disclosure within a week of social work staff
attending the Reading Conference on child abuse and
learning there from Jerry Simandl (who produced the
second set of Satanic indicators used by Social Services)
that children in the USA had reported babies being cooked
in microwave ovens.

[Rebecca] Aged 7. In care, sharing a foster
home with [Neil], alleged being at parties held in
cemeteries and of babies being killed or placed in
microwaves. At the Police interview his allegations
became more bizarre, he claimed that two of his best
friends had been murdered and that five babies had been
microwaved and that he was nearly forced to eat part of
the body. He then stated that 'they' microwaved the
adults to see 'how they like it' and put them in the
skip. He went on to talk of pirates digging for gold at
Wollaton Park and that he had been in the tunnels with
[Neil] and there was a monster "every mile". He
talked of cavemen living under water.

[Clara] Aged 6. In care and with one of the
Broxtowe children's former foster parents ([Craig]).
Alleged a witch party in a wood. She could not expand on
this but the site where the witches parties took place
does not exist.

We do not know when the social workers acquired their
current theories of Satanic abuse or when they started
using their techniques of disclosure/therapy. All we have
been able to learn from [Craig]'s records is that he was
involved in eight play therapy sessions at his Area
Office between March and August 1987 when he would have
been three and a half but we do not know the content of
these.

We asked for the audio and video tapes used in these
sessions, for information from the social workers upon
the therapeutic approach adopted, the models for
disclosure work and information on the play therapy
approach adopted by them. The Area Director, however,
wrote to us, "As you will recall when the Joint
Investigation Team was set up there was a great deal of
sensitivity regarding their role and I was assured by
yourself and the Director that the workers were not being
investigated, rather that the evidence/information was
being reviewed. If that is the case then I cannot see why
information regarding the model/style of the workers
needs to be looked at and as such I have instructed the
(Senior Social Worker) not to hand over that
information".

Likewise the NSPCC Unit refused to let us have the
video tapes and records of the work done there with
[Anna] and [Claire]. In view of this although we have
never doubted that the children were sexually abused we
cannot come to any informed conclusion as to whether any
earlier therapy work with the 'Broxtowe' children has
influenced their subsequent disclosures and we have not
had the opportunity to check with the social workers our
judgements on their work with the children or [Jane].

Shortly before the end of the Enquiry we considered
that we were grappling with some uncomfortable
information. It was apparent from [Mary]'s disclosures
that they were based upon social work interviews with
[Craig] which presumably must have taken place before he
became a Ward of Court.

[Craig] had been received into care in December 1986
while his cousins had been removed on Place of Safety
Orders in October 1987. We understood that the decision
to remove them was based in part at least upon
disclosures made by [Craig]. [Jane]'s second statement
(N.B. she is an adult) to the police in August 1988 if it
is true appeared to grow in significance when seen in the
light of the work done with [Mary] after March 1989. It
seemed to us to suggest a similar approach by the same
team of social workers at a much earlier date. The
following are extracts from [Jane]'s statement:

"When the case was in full swing my social
worker started interviewing me and asking me questions
about parties involving witches. The first time I told
her that the only parties of any kind I had been to were
at the (family home)... I told her I didn't know anything
about any other houses... she started asking me over and
over again whether I'd been to any other big houses where
witch parties had taken place. I kept saying I hadn't but
in the end I just got fed up with being asked so I just
said yes.

"She asked me to describe the houses. I told
her I couldn't so she said she'd take me round to see
them in the car... She pointed to the house and asked me
if that was the house. I said yes. She asked me what had
happened while I was there. I told her there were video
cameras there and children being abused. I made it all
up. I had never been to that house before in my life. I
made up a description of the inside of the house. She
took me to another house near Wollaton Park... she asked
me whether this was another house I'd been to. I just
said yes. I agreed with whatever she said, I have been
interviewed about 20 times by (my social worker) about
these houses but all I do is just keep saying yes

"I have seen [Mandy] many times over the past
few months and she's told me she's been telling the
Social Services about witch parties. I know she's telling
lies... [Mandy]'s told me that if I tell the Social
Services about witch parties at big houses I might have a
chance of getting my daughter back (child in care) (my
social worker's) told me if I tell the truth I could get
my daughter back... everything I have told (the social
worker) is lies. I've told her the truth more than once
but she wouldn't believe me so I just said anything....
the only things I know about witchcraft and magic are the
things I've seen on the telly.

"I was in Court when my statements were read
out in the care proceedings. Some of this was the things
I had told (the social worker). I was frightened to say
that it wasn't true."

Research into Other Cases in the U.K.

At this stage of the enquiry we also made enquiries
elsewhere in the country. Most of the police forces and
the NSPCC had no information but we obtained an
interesting response from Congleton and Humberside. We
have met with a Chief
Inspector from Humberside who has told us that after
a national "Evangelical" proponent of Satanic
abuse spent many hours with two 11 year old boys at her
home they eventually alleged Satanic abuse. A well
respected school master was arrested but intensive police
investigations found that none of these allegations
against the school master were based on reality.

As a consequence of the discrediting of the witnesses
due to the improper intervention of this person the
Prosecution had to drop serious charges of rape and
buggery against two men. The Attorney General became
involved. The police were convinced that they had a good
case against these men but were left with only the one
Defendant who pleaded guilty.

In the information presented to us as the start of the
Enquiry we were informed that in Congleton two separate
groups of children who had not had contact with each
other talked about babies being killed. They had also
talked about people dressed as clowns, people dressed up
as animals, lions and tigers and animals being
sacrificed. We contacted the investigating police who
informed us that the case revolved around three families
who were all neighbours. The children concerned belonged
to two of the families. The evidence which could be
substantiated revolved around sexual abuse only.

Whilst the children aged 5, 6, 10 and 12 years were in
care they made allegations of attending parties and the
murder of a baby named "Daniel" whose body was
buried in a back garden. The back garden was excavated
and Thermal Image Intensifiers were used. No evidence of
a body was found. The allegation was then altered and the
body was said to be buried on waste ground. This was also
checked and no body was found. The children had made the
disclosures during therapeutic work and were believed by
the social workers.

We were also told that one of the national figures
arousing public consciousness of ritual child abuse had
visited Congleton but we do not know whether this was
before or after the children's disclosures.